« .*«siife»-. •**„ .** .>va\ ■^^ A« 



'■'^^■^ 



*..*" .'. 











sP ^. •'•• <'*^ 



v^ .»i 





















;* «.^^ 







1 > - i • • ,. *f-\ cy . t • < 













* Ay rls • 






V, - 




"oV" 



'^* . » • 




°o 



^^0< 



o\ 



^Ov 




















5)^ .•IV'- > v^ - 











•^o^ 

.^^ 




sPv*. 



.0 ^<st>' "' ^ %. •'" 4P ^ "^ <^ 









A , I. * • «^ 
0^ .♦^/K?»,% O^ 



THE FUGITIYE SLAYK LAW. 








PEE WJiZ 

OF 

HON. EGBERT MNTOUL, JR., OF BEVERLY, MASS., 

DELIVERED BEFORE 

. ^ THE GRAND MASS CONVENTION 

'' OF THE 

DEMOCRATIC VOTERS OF THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
HOLDEN AT LYNN, THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1851. 

Phonogkaphici Repoet bt Dr. JamesW. Stone. 



Pursuant to a call from the District Committee, a very large and highly 
respectable meeting of the Democracy of the Second Congressional District, 
including the most active and efficient supporters of Democratic principles, for 
the last twenty years, in almost every town in the District, assembled at Lyce- 
um Hall, Lynn, on the afternoon of the 3d of April, for the purpose of consultation 
with reference to the election ordered for the following Monday. 

The meeting was called to order at half past two o'clock, and the Hon. Fred- 
erick Robinson, of Marblehead, formerly President of the Senate of Massachu- 
setts, was chosen Pi'esident of the Convention. 

Edward Pousland, Esq., of Beverly, Hon. James M. Usher of Medford, 
Hon. George W. Dike of Stoneham, William W. Boardman of Saugus, 
Benjamin Hathaway of Marblehead, Dr. G. B. Loring of Chelsea, 
A. D. Wait of Ipswich, Joseph Haines of Lynn, 

Henry Derby of Salem, Norman Story of Essex, 

Ebenezer H. Stacy of Gloucester, Addison Gott of Rockport, and 

C. EsTES of Dan vers, were chosen Vice Presidents ; and 
P. L. Cox, of Lynn, Francis A. Smith of Marblehead, and 

Henry Lane of Lynn, were chosen Secretaries. 

The Hon. Mr. Robinson, on taking the chair, in an animated address, enforced 
upon his hearers the necessity of recurring to those fundamental principles 
of human rights on which our free institutions are established, and which it has 
for sixty years been the proudest boast of the Democratic Party, that they 



2 .7?Z ,/ 

have defended ^Yith unwavering fidelity, and cherished with peculiar zeal. The 
unanimous applause with which his remarks were received, showed plainly that 
the faith of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Elbridgc Gerry, though it may 
be extinct in the metropolis of New England, still lives and burns in the hearts of 
the Country Democracy. 

When the often repeated bursts of applause which followed Mr. Robinson's appeal 
for freedom had subsided, Joseph Haines, Esq., of Lynn, presented for the 
consideration of the Convention the following resolutions : — 

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States has not conferred upon Congress 
the power to enact any law authorizing officers of the United States to determine the slavery 
or freedom of persons found within the territory of any State, and to convey them out of 
the State wherein they are found, to beheld as slaves in another State. 

Resolved, That no person in any State of this Union can be lawfully deprived of his 
liberty without due process of law ; which process, in the case of an alleged fugitive from 
service, is a suit at common law ; wherein the fact, whether said fugitive was lawfully held 
to service, in the State from which he is alleged to have escaped, shall be determined by 
a trial by jury. 

Resolved, That such trial by jury should precede the delivery, into the hands of the 
party claiming him, of such alleged fugitive, and should be had in the vicinity where the 
said alleged fugitive is found. 

Resolved, That in the determination of the question of liberty, all presumptions of law 
and fact, are, and ought to be, in favor of liberty. 

Resolved, That the fugitive slave law enacted by the Congress lately expired, contraven- 
ing these principles, is unjust, unconstitutional, in derogation of the fundamental maxims of 
free government, and ought to be speedily and for ever repealed. 

The reading of the resolutions was interrupted frequently with demonstrations 
of approval, and after being read they were laid before the meeting for discussion. 

The President introduced Mr. Rantoul, who was received with great enthusiasm, 
and preliminary to commencing his speech re-read the aforesaid resolutions, and 
proceeded. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR. 



Mr. President, the Convention which I 
now have the honor to address, was called, as I 
suppose, at my suggestion. The reason why 
I desired of the District Committee of this dis- 
trict that the Democratic voters of this district 
should be called together, and that I mio;ht 
have an opportunity to address them, was one 
which I think will meet the approbation of 
you all. It was, that since the period when 
I was first nominated to represent this district 
in Congress, a very material change has taken 
place in the condition of affairs. One change 



was this. I have had the honor to be nomi- 
nated for Congress again and again, when I 
supposed there were very few persons who 
believed there was any probability of my 
election. A law has now been passed which 
makes it certain that some person must be 
elected to represent this district in Congress. 
It is called the Plurality Law. Therefore, 
as we now know we are not to pass through 
trials without end, but either at the election 
on Monday next, or on the succeeding one, 
some person will be elected, it therefore be- 



penflence is valuable because it preserves our 
liberty ; and the Union is great and glorious 
because it preserves our independence, and 
thereby our liberty. [Prolonged applause.] 
I love the Union and the Constitution, 
then, not for themselves, but for the great 
end for which they were created ; to secure 
and perpetuate liberty, not the liberty of a 
class superimposed upon the thraldom of 
groaning multitudes, not the liberty of a 
ruling race cemented by the tears and blood 
of subject races, but human liberty, perfect 
liberty, common to all for whom the Union 
and the Constitution were made, to the whole 
" people of the United States," and to their 
" posterity." 

It is because I believe all this, that I love 
the Union and the Constitution. And if I 
did not believe this, I should go back to my 
pilgrim ancestors and take a lesson from 
them. When they came out from the old 
world, and left their country which they 
loved, and the constitution of Grreat Britain 
which tliey loved, (for they expressed their 
love for it in all their writings, speeches, and 
deeds,) though they loved their country and 
its constitution, they loved something else 
more than they loved their country. They 
loved liberty more. " Patria cara, carior 
Ubertas.^' Interwoven with every fibre of 
my heart is the love of my country ; but free- 
dom is the charm which endears and conse- 
crates her ; and if the spirit of liberty should 
take her flight from my native land, my love 
and worship are not due to brute clods and 
rocks, to her prairies, or her mountains ; but, 
■where liberty dwells, iliere is my country ; 
there onli/ is my country ! [Great applause.] 
Dear to my inmost soul are the Union and the 
Constitution ; but God-given liberty is above 
the Union, and above the Constitution, and 
above all the works of man. [Long contin- 
ued cheering.] 

The President. That is the true higher 
law. 

Mr. Il.\NTO0L. These ideas are not at all 
new with me. They are not taken up on ac- 
count of any present position of public affairs. 
I see before me quite a number of gentlemen 
who were present eighteen years ago, when I 
had occasion to discuss the value of the Fed- 
eral Union. I then took the same view of 
the value of the Union and the Constitution 
that I take now. I valued them then, as I 
value them now, because of their great pur- 
pose. So long as they accomplish that pur- 
pose, so long are they the highest political 



blessings. And if they ever cease in the 
providence of God to accomplish that great 
purpose, they become worthless, they may be- 
come even a curse. 

Washington in his invaluable legacy of 
practical sagacity, the farewell address, held 
the same view of the relations in which the 
Union, the Constitution and the great princi- 
ple of liberty stand to each othgr. It is 
because of our love of liberty that we do 
love and ought to love the Union and the 
Constitution. He gives to the view which 
I have just taken the full sanction of his 
mighty name. He declares " The unity 
of government which constitutes you one 
people" to be "justly" dear to you, be- 
cause "it is a main pillar in the edi- 
fice of your real independence," and " of 
that very liberty which you so highly prize." 
He tells you that by this Union the several 
parts avoid much of the liability to, and the 
danf^er from wars with foreign nations, and 
domestic " broils, and wars between them- 
selves;" and though last, not least, "the 
necessity of those overgrown military estab- 
lishments, which, under any form of govern- 
ment, are inauspicious to liberty, and which 
are to be regarded as particularly hostile to 
republican liberty." " In this sense it is," 
says he, " that your Union ought to be con- 
sidered as a main prop of your liberty ; and 
that the love of the one ought to endear to 
you the preservation of the other." It is be- 
cause I receive into an undoubting heart 
these parting lessons of that apostle of liberty, 
who was the founder of our Union, and in- 
augurator of our Constitution, that I venerate 
his work, and cling to it, as to the ark of our 
political salvation. 

Living in this faith, and desiring to live up 
to this faith, I so exhibit my fidelity to the 
Union, and so exercise my devotion to the 
Constitution, as will best promote the ultimate 
purpose of the Union and the Constitution, 
the cause of human liberty. Were I know- 
ingly to swerve from this straight path, but by 
the division of a hair, I should be so far false 
to the glorious mission of an American citizen, 
and to the obvious duty devolving on a Mass- 
achusetts man. Every son of our ancient 
Commonwealth, who swears to support her 
institutions, becomes, by that fact, a soldier 
sworn upon the altar of freedom. My influ- 
ence, I know, must be but limited, and my 
sphere of action humble, but this does not 
affect the nature of my obligations. The de- 
gree of power which a man may be able to put 



v5 

comes a different question as to wbat ought 
to be done. 

There has also been a change with regard 
to other great questions. The great question 
of slavery has now assumed a particular 
shape, concerning which it is now necessary 
to declare an opinion. So long as that ques- 
tion was floating in uncertainty, so long as it 
was connected with subjects which were 
changing day by day, it might not be desir- 
able that a public man should state his opin- 
ions. But at last this question has assumed 
a definite shape. It has presented a distinct 
issue, an issue reaching back to fundamental 
principles. And I did iii^my conscience sup- 
pose, that the Democratic voters would desire 
to hear from me, before they should deposit 
their votes at the election of Monday next. 

Supposing that all the Democratic voters 
desired to be acquainted with the views of 
their candidate, one of two courses was neces- 
sary to bo adopted ; cither in writing to pre- 
sent my views to the citizens of this District, 
or to invite the Democratic voters to come 
together and meet me face to face. I have 
preferred the latter, because lean speak more 
freely than I can write, (though that is a por- 
sonal consideration,) and because if I address 
my fellow citizens here, those who wish to 
hear me can come, and those who do not wish 
to hear me can stay away. 

I am now ready to proceed to make an ex- 
act statement of my opinions — a statement so 
unequivocal that there shall be no mistake 
about it. I intend to make a distinct and 
unequivocal definition of my ideas of what 
seems to be the most important issue now be- 
fore the country. [Cheers.] And when I 
have done so, for I want to lay down a dis- 
tinct proposition upon this subject, I shall then 
say to my friends of the democratic party, who 
are here present. Gentlemen, you have sup- 
ported me as your candidate through a good 
many trials. It has come to my ears lately 
that there are some persons who claim to be- 
long to the democratic party who would not 
be satisfied if I made such declarations as I 
now intend to make. I desire that if there 
be such gentlemen present they may have an 
opportunity to show themselves, and to de- 
clare their purposes, and, if they constitute a 
majority of the democratic party, that they 
may substitute some other candidate in my 
stead. If the democratic party here present, 
after having heard the views which I shall 
express on this subject, shall choose to make 
any other arrangement than the present, with 
regard to the Congressional election, either 



for the reason that I have suggested, or for 
any other reason, for any grounds, I care not 
what, then I shall only have to thank them 
for past favors, and go into the battle as a 
private soldier. [Applause.] 

In explaining one's ideas before the people, 
it seems to liave become quite the fashion, of 
late, to go back so far as to swear fealty to the 
Constitution and the Union. I will follow 
that fashion. I am attached, and as devoted- 
ly attached as any other man, to the Union of 
these States, and to the Constitution of our 
government. I believe the Union to be at 
the bottom of almost all the other political 
blessings that we enjoy. I believe the Con- 
stitution to be — not perfect, as nothing pro- 
ceeding from human hands is perfect — but as 
nearly and as reasonably perfect as could have 
been expected at the time it was made, as could 
be expected if it were made now, and even 
better than if we were to make it over again. 

But when I say that I admire and love 
both the Union and the Constitution, it is be- 
cause of that which they secure to us. The 
Union is great, I might almost fay, it is the 
greatest of our political blessings, because it 
secures to us what was the object of the 
Union. And the Constitution is good, and 
great, and valuable, and to be held for ever 
sacred, because it secures to us what was tho 
object of the Constitution. And what is that ? 
Liberty ! And if it were not for that, the 
Union would be valueless, and the Constitu- 
tion would not be worth the parchment upon 
which it is written. ["Hear! hear!"] 

Why do we value the Union ? Because it 
secures our national independence and the 
independence of the several States ; because 
without it, there would exist a number of 
petty States, which would be, as they are in 
Europe, exposed to perpetual wars with 
each other and with their neighbors. We 
should be obliged to keep up a standing 
army, and should be quarrelling with each 
other, as the petty German States have done 
for ages. With all that, your national inde- 
pendence would be, if preserved, continually 
in hazard, but most probably could not even 
be preserved. And out of that condition of 
things would grow most probably a contest of 
small States with great ones ; and the inde- 
pendence of the weaker ones would be sacri- 
ficed, while the greater ones would rule over 
them. Against all that, the Union guaran- 
ties us. It guaranties to us independence. 
What is iiidcpcndence ? Have there not 
been the most cruel despotisms on earth 
which were independent nations ? Our inde- 



forth is determined by God in the original 
constitution of his foculties. He is justly 
deemed responsible only for the tendency in 
which they may be directed. Tbe tendency 
of my steps this day is to tread the path 
our fathers trod, THE PATH OF FREE- 
DOxAI AND PROGRESS. My hope and 
trust is to hand down to posterity, not only 
unimpaired, but strengthened and augmented, 
all the safeguards of liberty which, through 
many ages of long suffering, the toil of pat- 
riots earned, and the blood of martyrs 
hallowed, and which the fathers of the Amer- 
ican Revolution died believing that they had 
secured for ever. [Prolonged applause.] 

It is not any new-fangled doctrine that sets 
up the means above the end, and says that 
the parchment is the inestimable treasure, 
and that the object for which that Constitu- 
tion was made is to be forgotten; that the 
object which our fathers went through a 
seven years' war to accomplish, is to be neg- 
lected — it is no such new-fangled doctrine 
that I maintain. I contend that the Declara- 
tion of Independence, the Constitution, and 
the Union of the United States are valuable, 
only as long as the purpose of them is valua- 
ble. But that these instruments are to be 
talked of as if they were intrinsically holy, 
and that the purpose which was in the souls 
of those that made them, as it should be in 
our souls to-day, is not to be spoken of 
without incurrino; the charo;e of fanaticism or 
abolitionism — I go for no such new-fangled 
doctrines as those. 

Liberty is the object for which govern- 
ments are founded ; and that government is 
best administered where the spirit of liberty 
is best preserved. [Cheers.] If then this 
be the great object of the Union and the Con- 
stitution, and that which makes the Union and 
the Constitution dear, how is the government 
to be administered, how is the Constitution 
to be interpreted ? There have been two 
great schools of politics in this country since 
the foundation of our government. To one 
of these schools I have always belonged. I 
think the maxims of that school essential to 
the durability of our institutions. It is not 
the expediency of party policy which seems 
to me to be involved. Two great fundamen- 
tal principles as to how the Constitution is to 
be interpreted are involved. It is a question 
on »which parties are now divided, and on 
which they always will divide, till the end of 
time. 

Let us look at that question. The Con- 
stitution of the United States creates a mv- 



ernment of limited powers. Are they to be 
held strictly to the limitations of that in- 
strument ? or are they to have a system of 
loose construction which will transcend those 
powers ? That is the great question at the 
bottom of all our party divisions for sixty 
years past. 

Now I hold, and have always held, that 
the Constitution of the United States is an 
instrument which is to be strictly construed ; 
that the Constitution is the letter of attorney 
by which the members of Congress are au- 
thorized to act, and that they are empowered 
to do nothing which it does not authorize 
them to do. That is my doctrine, and it is 
democratic doctrine. I ask of democrats 
some application of that doctrine. It is the 
doctrine on which the government stands, 
that the Constitution of the United States is 
to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be 
established by means of unnatural inferences. 
Was that the doctrine of those who made the 
Constitution of the United States? 

The Constitution of IMassachusetts says 
that the General Court shall make all laws 
which are for the benefit of the people which 
are not forbidden in that instrument. It says 
the Legislature shall not take away the trial 
by jury ; it shall not abolish the habeas 
corpus. It forbids that which shall not be 
done. All else may be done by the Legisla- 
ture. This is the Constitution of Massa- 
chusetts. 

The Constitution of the United States, on 
the other hand, says, this thing you may do ; 
that thing you may do ; the other thing you 
may do ; and there it stops. To that, the 
government of the United States is to be 
strictly held. To prevent any misapprehen- 
sion on that subject, let me say that it was 
well known that there was one school of poli- 
ticians who considered that safety only con- 
sisted in following the example of their pre- 
decessors, that is, in following the example of 
Great Britain ; who said that we must have a 
strong government, or we should be in the 
condition of the Germans, the Italians, and 
the Greeks, for a long series of years. And 
history seemed to be in their favor. 

I do not wonder at their opinions. They 
said, " All these Republican experiments 
have failed because the governments were not 
strong enough. You must not make the 
government too weak." And perhaps our 
government would not have held together if 
the people had not been more intelligent than 
those of the German States, or if they had 
been surrounded by strong nations at war 



6 



■with them. If we had had a nation in 
€anada as strong as France, and one in Mex- 
ico as strong as Great Britain, and should 
have been at war with them, or were con- 
stantly liable to war with them, perhaps our 
government would not have stood. It was 
not at that time to be expected that they 
should know how the thing would turn out, 
because it had never been written in history. 
They had seen no great successful republican 
government. But it is our own fault if we 
are not wiser by experience. I say that the 
school of politicians who thought the govern- 
ment was not strong enough did not intend 
to have a strict construction. 

A gentleman once remarked to Alexander 
Hamilton, who was one of that school, that 
he thought the Constitution was a pretty 
good instrument. " It depends," replied 
he, " upon how you construe it." He was 
in favor of modelling our government some- 
what after the English form. He thought 
that the Minister of the Treasury, and of 
Foreign Affairs, should step into our House of 
Representatives as the Premier of England 
enters the House of Commons, and should 
there explain the intentions of the government 
and the relations of other countries to our 
own. Then he wanted a public debt, be- 
cause Great Britain had a debt. He wanted 
a Bank as Great Britain had a Bank. And 
so on other points, he wanted the government 
as strong as it could be made. It is my 
opinion that he was honest in that view. 

There was another party who took the 
opposite view. They said, it is true that 
confederations have broken to pieces ; but 
there have also been many governments which 
have progressed until they became despotisms. 
They laid down the principle that govern- 
ment should not go one hair's breadth beyond 
the powers given to them When the Con- 
stitution came up for adoption, many States 
refused to adopt it, unle.ss there was strong 
probability that certain amendments would be 
adopted. One of them was thought peculiar- 
ly important. That amendment was subse- 
quently adopted, and is now in my hands. It 
is the lOth article of the amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States : 

" The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people." 

The powers not given are reserved to the 
States, or to the people. When you ask 
whether a bill be constitutional or not, the 
first thiufr to be done is to look into the Con- 



stitution, and find the express grant therefor. 
If it is not there it is reserved to the States or 
to the people. That is the democratic doc;.. 
trine. [Applause.] 

Now was that Massachusetts doctrine ? 
Most assuredly it was. Massachusetts had a 
good deal of democracy in her in early times. 
Wlien old Sam Adams drafted this bill of 
rights, there was a good deal of democracy in 
him, and a good deal in the people. Here is 
the Bill of Rights, drawn up in 1780, showing 
what they thought then. 

Art. IV. " The people of this Common- 
wealth have the sole and exclusive right of 
governing themselves as a free , sovereign and 
independent State ; and do and forever here- 
after shall exercise and enjoy every power, 
jurisdiction and right which is not or may not 
hereafter be by them expressly delegated to 
the United States of America in Congress 
assembled." 

What do they mean by "expressly del- 
egated to the United States?" They say 
this, in so many words, in language that can- 
not be mistaken. This is what they meant. 
They meant that the Government of the 
United States should not then, or thereafter, 
assume any power which the States had not 
expressly delegated to it. And well would 
it have been if that principle of the majority 
of the States of the Union had always been 
adhered to ; it would have saved us a vast 
deal of trouble. 

I belong, then, to that school which holds 
that the Constitution should be strictly con- 
strued, and its meaning strictly adhered to. 
And when I say this, I have at the same 
time a great veneration for all the compro- 
mises of the Constitution. We hear much of 
them. What are they ? I sometimes hear 
people talk of the compromises of the Con- 
stitution in such a way that I think they would 
be much puzzled if they were to be asked 
what they are. There were compromises, 
the non-adoption of which would have pre- 
vented the Constitution itself from being 
adopted by the people. Leading members 
even went home in despair of effecting a 
Constitution acceptable to the people. And 
it was after they had gone, that certain com- 
promises were adopted, which finally insured 
the acceptance of that instrument. What 
were they ? 

In many confederacies, ancient and mod- 
ern, all the States entering into the combina- 
tion had an equal number of votes. The 
small States insisted that that was the right 
way. They said, we shall be swallowed up 



by (he larger States unless we can vote by 
States as was done in Congress under the 
Confederation. I suppose it is well known 
to you, that the Convention of States was 
called together for the purpose of amending 
the old articles of Confederation. They 
found, however, that they would not bear 
amendment. They scarcely made any at- 
tempt at amendment, for they ascertained 
that it was easier to make a new instrument 
than to repair the old one. In the old Con- 
federation the States were all equal. Del- 
aware had as large a vote as New York. — 
Luther Martin who led off this opposition, 
has left an account of it, and of his own ac- 
tion. The small States refused to come into 
the support of a combination, unless they could 
have an equal vote. And the convention came 
very near breaking up in despair of ever set- 
tling that distracting question. How did they 
finally settle it ? By making this compromise ; 
b^r saying that in one branch the people 
should be represented according to popula- 
tion, and in the other the States should be 
equally represented ! New York, Pennsylva- 
nia, Virginia and Massachusetts said to the 
small States, You shall be represented in the 
one branch according to population ; and we 
will consent to be represented in the other 
branch by States. The large States were 
discontented with the equal representation 
in the Senate. The small States were 
discontented with the great amount of power 
which the large States had in the lower house. 
This was then the first compromise. It was 
the great one, because this difficulty came 
nearer shipwrecking the whole government 
than any other, and because it was the most 
important. 

There was another compromise, and it, 
too, was important. The immediate occasion 
of the formation of this government, grew 
out of difficulties of navigation chiefly in 
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. Grreat 
difficulties arose on account of the different 
commercial arrangements which were entered 
into by the several states. For instance, if 
Massachusetts laid duties, and Rhode Island 
did not, goods would be introduced, duty 
free, into Khode Island, and smuggled over 
the line. Ten thousand difficulties were 
growing up between the different states on 
this account, and particularly between Vir- 
ginia and Maryland, concerning the naviga- 
tion of Chesapeake Bay. These difficulties 
led to the calling of a convention for the 
purpose of amending the articles of confed- 
eration. It was ascertained at once, that this 



could not be done. But finally a new at- 
tempt was made, which resulted in the form- 
ation of this Constitution. The attempt to 
regulate commerce was in fact what led to 
the formation of this Constitution. And they 
were obliged to make a compromise, which we 
have almost forgotten. 

There were some States which were agri- 
cultural States, raising tobacco and rice prin- 
cipally, as the cultivation of cotton was then 
hardly thought of. They were planting 
States. Then there were also certain States 
which it was then foreseen would be naviga- 
ting and manufacturing States. The com- 
merce existed then in some measure, but the 
manufacturing did not to any great extent. 
Now the agriculturists said, If we allow 
Congress to regulate commerce, they will 
put duties on exports, and thereby shut off 
the sale of our products. They did not then 
think that the duties on imports would pro- 
duce the same effect. They did not think 
at that time, as seems to be now a favorite 
notion with some, that the greater the weight 
of taxation, the better for them and for 
the people, under the plea that the greater 
duty would furnish the greater protection to 
our industry. Neither thinking of that, nor 
of the effect which would be produced by the 
taxation of imports, they insisted that Con- 
gress should put duties on imports alone. — 
The revenue on the importation of goods was 
of great value to New York and Massachu- 
setts. They gave up that, and this bargain 
was made between the agricultural states on 
the one hand, and the commercial on the oth- 
er, in which they agreed that exports should 
not be taxed, and that taxes on imports 
should be equalized. 

Then came another compromise. They 
had not then thought that taxation on all the 
imported goods was to be regarded asables.s- 
ino'. Therefore they had never anticipated 
that all the revenue necessary for the purpose 
of carrying on the government would be ob- 
tained on the imports. So strong was the 
feeling against raising a large revenue from 
imports, that when Hamilton made a report 
proposing five per cent duties on some im- 
ports, he had to argue at great length to the 
effect, that though it was a terrible thing, we 
should submit to it, because it was necessary 
in order to obtain funds for the government. 
The taxes on imports, it was not apprehend- 
ed, would ever be so high as to defray the 
expenses of government. On the contrary, 
they expected that the expenses of govern- 
ment would be defrayed by direct taxation. 



Then it became an important question, How 
sball taxation be apportioned among the 
people? " Why," said men at the North, 
" according to population; and let every body, 
•white and black, be enumerated." " No," 
replied the Sonth, "for here are our south- 
ern slaves who do not produce as much as 
your laborers. We ought not to be taxed 
according to population." And not only was 
there a compromise made on this subject, but 
they were ready to have their representation 
diminished by two-fifths of their slaves, which 
was not much thought of at tbe time, inas- 
much as they obtained as a recompense what 
was esteemed by them as a great boon, name- 
ly, the taxation, also in proportion to their 
numbers, omitting two fifths of their slaves. 
This was very much desired at the South and 
opposed at the North And the South con- 
quered. We now talk about taking off the 
whole of their slave representation. I do not 
know but that they would have been glad to 
have had the whole removed, if they could by 
that means have avoided taxation therefor. 
That was the point of view from which they 
then looked upon it. It was, as you perceive, 
then viewed very difFerentlyfrom what it now is. 
In that compromise there was no reference 
"whatever made to a slave, or to the condition 
of a slave. It is simply a certain mode of 
ascertaining taxation and representation. It 
was decided, that to certain persons who were 
described, they should add three-fifths of all 
other persons, to obtain the basis of repre- 
sentation and direct taxation. The reason 
why that phraseology was adopted, was, that 
there existed a sort of secret dislike of the in- 
stitution of slavery ; [applause ;] a dislike 
extending to southern men as well as to north- 
ern men. Southern men aided in the for- 
mation of this Constitution, and in the adop- 
tion of this article. Southern men felt a sort 
of unpleasant sensation at the sound of that 
word slave, and of that other word slavery, 
and did not fancy the idea of introducing 
them into a document which was to live for- 
ever. They contrived to express their ideas, 
therefore, without mentioning those terms. — 
It cannot be said that this was any compro- 
mise on the subject of slavery. It was a 
compromise on the subject of taxation. They 
put in sometliiiig equivalent on the subject of 
I'epresentation. 

There conies, then, another compromise, 
which is important. There were several small- 
er ones, to which I have not alluded. Those 
to which I have already referred, and that 



which I shall mention, are Important. The 

remaining compromise is this : 

Art. 1. Sec. 9. " The migration or importation 
of such persons as any of the States now exist- 
ing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- 
hibited by the Congress prior to tbe year 1808." 

Those who made the Constitution said that 
this importation should go on in such States 
as chose to carry it on, for twenty years, and 
that after that time the federal power may be 
exerted, and the slave trade shall be stopped. 
Accordingly, when that period arrived, it was 
declared piracy. At the moment that the 
Constitution would allow Congress to act, that 
moment Congress acted. There was not the 
delay of a day or an hour. The slave trade 
was forever prohibited. That Is the last of 
the important compromises. 

Now when people talk about adhering to 
the compromises of the constitution, referring 
thereby to certain other things which are not 
compromises, which are not the agreement of 
two parties, in which each gives way a little 
for the sake of that which it esteems a great- 
er o;ood, but to those other things which are not 
alluded to in the Constitution, I should like to 
have them define what they mean. These 
which I have mentioned, it is necessary to 
adhere to. 

Therefore I go on to declare as to certain 
other clauses, that there are stipulations which 
are to be construed. And I propose now to 
construe them. 

I come to the fourth article of the Consti- 
tion of the United States. In that I find all 
that is found in regard to the delivery of fu- 
gitive slaves. And I intend to ask, What 
does that language mean? Construe it by 
the same rules according to which the other 
clauses are construed. In the first place, the 
first section of the fourth article of the Con- 
stitution of the United States says, " Full 
faith and credit shall be given in each State 
to the public acts, records and judicial pro- 
ceedings of every other State." Every 
State shall give full faith and credit to the 
public records of every other state. Does 
this grant power to any body ? I see in the 
words that follow, what the makers of the 
Constitution thought on that subject. I see 
that they thought it did not grant the power 
to Congress, because they add language giv- 
ing the power. What I have read is no 
grant of power to Congress. It is a prohi- 
bition to the States. It says. You shall r ot 
deny your belief In the truth of the public 
records of your sister States. If a court in 



South Carolina says a certain thing, you are 
to give full faith to it. That does not say 
that Congress shall do anything about it. — 
And the people of the United States did not 
understand that Congress had the power. 
The makers of the Constitution did not un- 
derstand from the extract which I have read, 
that Congress had any power over the sub- 
ject ; and for this reason, that the close of 
the section gives to Congress the power which 
would have been needless had the preceding 
language conferred it. " And the Congress 
may, by general laws, prescribe the manner 
in which such acts, records and proceedings 
shall bo proved, and the effect thereof." 
What need was there of adding this latter 
clause if the first was a grant of power ? You 
may read this constitution through, and you 
will not find any words wasted. Every word 
means something. It was put there becau.se 
it was necessary, and because the meaning 
would not have been there without it. I say 
that that first clause did not contain a grant 
of power ; and the men who put it there 
knew it. They first say that faith shall be 
given ; and then bestow on Congress the 
power in relation thereto. The powers not 
delegated to Congress are reserved to the 
States. That power would have been re- 
served to the States if not given to Congress 
in the last clause of this section. Can lan- 
guage make that clearer. I go to the next 
section. 

Sec. 2. " The citizens of each State shall 
be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
ties of citizens in the several States." 

Very well ! A colored man in Massachu- 
setts goes out from our ports, and goes into 
one of the harbors of South Carolina. They 
do not give him the immunities of the citizen 
of the State. Does any southern man con- 
tend that Congress has the power to enforce 
that section ? No ! there is no power grant- 
ed there. There is a declaration of a princi- 
ple, but it does not say that Congress shall 
possess the power to enforce it. Therefore 
they say that South Carolina may make what 
laws she pleases, and the United States gov- 
ernment can do nothing to prevent it. They 
adopt one rule for this clause, and another 
rule for another clause in the same section. 
But do I say that Congress has the power to 
enforce action in consonance with this clause, 
in the harbor of Charleston ? No ! I choose 
strict construction on all these clauses. I 
adopt the rule of strict construction in them 
all, and not a strict construction in one and a 
loose one in another. 



The next clause is as follows : "A per- 
son charged in any State with treason, felony, 
or any other crime, who shall flee from jus- 
tice and be found in another State, shall, on 
demand of the Executive authority of the 
state from which he fled, be delivered up, to 
be removed to the State having jurisdiction of 
the crime." Under that clause no serious 
difficulty has arisen. The States have given 
up criminals, and no State has of late years 
objected to it. 

Then comes the next clause : " No per- 
son held to service or labor in one State, un- 
der the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
shall in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein be discharged from such service or 
labor." 

To whom is that directed ? To the States 
or to Congress? To the States! It says, 
" no person shall be discharged by any law 
or regulation of the States." That is a reg- 
ulation addressed to the States and not to the 
Union. And then it goes on to say, " But 
shall be delivered up on claim of the party 
to whom such service or labor may be due." 

In the case of a person charged with crime, 
the rule is, that he shall be removed to the 
State having jurisdiction of the crime. Now, 
if the first part of this section is addressed to 
the States, then to whom is the subsequent 
clause addressed ? For it does not go on to 
say Congress shall make the laws, but it says 
you shall deliver up. How can any person 
contend that one is addressed to the States 
and the other not ? 

One clause says they shall not make laws, 
and the next that ihey shall deliver up. I 
say that that last clause is as clearly addressed 
to the States as the first. And then I go 
back to the old rule laid down by our fathers, 
written by Samuel Adams in the Bill of 
Rights of Massachusetts, in which he says, 
" Every power, jurisdiction and right, shall 
remain with the people, unless specially del- 
egated to Congress." Have these powers 
been delegated ? [" No ! No ! "] 

There is not, then, in this clause, a dele- 
gation of pcwer to the United States govern- 
ment to pass any law about fugitives from 
labor. There is a direction that certain things 
shall be done, and that certain other things 
shall not be done. And that is directed to 
the States. A fugitive shall not, by any law 
or regulation of that State, be discharged. 
That is addressed to the State. 

I come, then, to the conclusion to which 
the present head of the State department 
came, and which he announced again as late 



10 



ns March 7, 1850. I come to the conclusio 
that this section of the Constitution was ad- 
dressed to the States. I quote Mr Web- 
ster's opinion for this reason, that he has al- 
ways gone rather further in favor of increas- 
ing the power of the government than the 
Democratic party. Mr. Webster has gone 
further than we have. He has allowed a 
National I3ank to be constitutional. I might 
give other cases. His mind is of such a na- 
ture that it has a tendency to extend the pow- 
ers of the United States government a great 
deal further than the Democratic party have 
thought it right. I am not now criticising 
his opinions in favor of enlarging the powers 
of the government. He has been a Federal- 
ist all his life, belonging to a party who have 
been inclined to give great power to the Uni- 
ted States government. It is not at all un- 
likely that if the power had existed in the 
Constitution, he would there have found it. 
He says particularly that he thought it was 
directed to the states, and not to the general 
government. 

The United States Supreme Court have 
made a decision to tlie contrary. That is a 
fact which stares us full in the face. In the 
case of Prigg vs. the State of Pennsylvania, 
they decided that the States have no right to 
legislate for the carrying into effect of this 
section, but that the power thereof lies in 
Congress. Perhaps it would not be proper 
for me, considering my profession as a law- 
yer, to argue the case against them. But I 
am not satisfied with the decision, or their 
reasons for it. And I believe it was a mis- 
take. I believe, too, that it was a mistake, 
the whole consequences of which will not be 
seen for many years. I think they should 
have taken the ground the democratic party 
must take, (for they cannot come to any 
other conclusion,) and which Daniel Webster 
tells us was his opinion, that the language of 
this clause of the Constitution, was addressed 
to the States. [Applause.] 

Why, my friends, two sets of dangers have 
always threatened this government in the 
view of the people ; one party has feared 
that it might fall to pieces ; the other that it 
might become too strong. Which have we 
now most rea.son to apprehend ? Is there 
any danger that our government will prove 
to be too weak V Originally, one fear was 
that they could not raise money enough to 
defray the expenses of the government. They 
did not think of obtaining a revenue by the 
taxation of imports to such an extent ns to 
rai.se thirty or forty millions of dollars. They 



thought of one million, one and a half or two 
millions of dollars. Alexander Hamilton 
said that the government could not be car- 
ried on because men would not travel from 
Maine and Georgia, as far as Washington, 
for the purpose of participating in the affairs 
of government. Now it is not difficult to 
find men of the first order of talent to come 
even from California, if their mileage be paid. 
[Laughter.] 

The dangers that the general government 
could not enlist powerful men ; that it could 
not raise money enough for its expenses, have 
disappeared in smoke and mist, and we can 
now hardly conceive of such dangers. 

But the contrary danger is more and more 
a reality. There may be a continual accu- 
mulation of power by the general govern- 
ment. There may be such an increase of 
taxation as to crush the community. There 
may be a large standing army. Nobody 
thinks of any objection to adding a million or 
five millions of dollars for the support of the 
army or navy. But add a few thousand 
dollars to the salary of the Judges of the 
United States, and there will be a great out- 
cry about the lavish expenditure of the gov- 
ernment. 

I say that the constant increase of power 
of the general government does seriously affect 
the interests of the community. If that be 
so, how is it to be cured ? How is it to be 
prevented ? For prevention is easier than 
cure. It is to be prevented by the strict 
construction of the Constitution. And this 
becomes every hour more necessary, not only 
because it will prevent the enlargement of 
the power of the government, but in conse- 
quence of the great extent of our territory. 

If the government extended over New 
England only, there is a homogeneous people 
which might be easily managed. But when 
we come to have States like New England, 
States like the cotton and planting States of 
the South and West, with new and distant 
States like California, containing divers hab- 
its, i-eligions, and so much diversity in all 
those things which make a people one peo- 
ple, then it is important that the sphere of 
your general government should not be ex- 
tended into all sorts of matters. It should . 
be restricted to its proper subjects. For in- 
stance, the regulation of foreign commerce 1 
That is necessarily done by the general gov- 
ernment. I am for carrying it a little fur- 
ther than some people. Knowing that it 
was the intent of the framcrs of the Consti- 



11 



tiition to carry it as far as the necessity went, 
I am for carrying it as far as that necessity 
demands. 

And when the general government de- 
cided that this power could be exercised 
for the construction of light houses, the con- 
struction of piers, and for the removal of ob- 
structions in the liarbors of our eastern ports, 
and when I saw all that, I thought that it was 
a legitimate exercise of power. And I thought 
the same principle could be carried into the 
West just as well as on the Atlantic coast. 
If that power will authorize the removal of 
an obstruction in New York harbor, it will 
authorize the removal of obstructions in the 
waters of the Mississippi. If it will author- 
ize expenditures at Cape Ann, it will also 
authorize them in Lake Michigan. Give the 
West fair play. Let the government do 
what must be done ; and then carry the 
principle out so as to make it fair and equal 
for all sections of the country. [Cheers.] But 
having done that I would not allow the gen- 
eral government to go into any exercise of 
power which is not delegated to it. Since 
the decision of the case of Prigg, the States 
have thought they were not responsible for 
what was done. They have therefore in 
some cases refused the use of their jails, and 
the assistance of their officers, for the recap- 
ture of fugitive slaves. The United States 
government now go on and legislate. 

It would be easy to illustrate in a thousand 
ways, the evils that may grow in. the future 
history of the country out of this disposition 
of the general government to encroach upon 
the rights of the States — to show that the 
fears of Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Ad- 
ams, and Patrick Henry, and Elbridgc Gerry 
— fears of indefinite usurpation tending to- 
wards, and finally terminating in consolidated 
federal despotism, may perhaps some day bo 
realized. I prefer to take this precise evil in 
order to illustrate the effect of this tendency. 
A law which is made by a State, is likely to 
be suited to what is to be done. The State 
of Massachusetts knows what her people can 
bear, and what they cannot bear. But if a 
law is to be made contrary to the sentiments 
of any State, it will be impracticable to carry 
it out in that State. 

How docs that apply to the question of 
slavery ? Just in this way ! The retaking 
of fugitive slaves is to be carried out, if any 
where, in a free State. Slaves do not, when 
they escape, stop in a Slave State. If fugi- 
tives are to be returned from any place, it is 
from a Free State. When Congress makes | 



a law on the subject, it makes it against the 
very inmost sentiments of the souls of the 
people of the free States. [" Shame ! " 



Shar 



'] 



Is that a power likely by its exercise to tend 
to the perpetuation of the Union, by carrying 
out this law. I propose to perpetuate the 
Union by checking the power of the General 
Government, by confining it within its legiti- 
mate sphere of action, to those concerns upon 
which it may act for the common good, with- 
out arousing indignation and hatred in one 
section against the other ; sometimes driving 
South Carolina to the brink of rebellion by 
the galling weight of unjust and intolerable 
taxation, and sometimes outraging all that is 
honest and patriotic in puritan Massachu- 
setts, by levelling at a single blow all those 
bulwarks of liberty, which barons bold and 
sages grave in the olden time, and the Ee- 
publicans who brought the Stuart to the 
block, with those who broke the yoke of the 
house of Hanover in later days, had labored, 
each in their generation since the twelfth 
century, to erect ; which it is the proudest pre- 
rogative and boast of Britain that she pos- 
sesses ; and which constituted the richest in- 
heritance that our fathers received from the 
mother island empire. I propose that the 
Federal power shall lift its iron heel from the 
neck of Massachusetts, and return to its ap- 
pointed duty, and circumscribed routine. 
[Loud Cheers.] 

But we are told that these are measures 
of conciliation, measures of peace. En- 
force this law, and we shall have peace and 
quietness, it is said. How ? Is one-third of 
the white people of the United States to dic- 
tate to the other two-thirds, and call their 
submission peace ? I admit that these slave 
interests may set one part of the country 
against the other. It may so happen that 
difficulties will take place in either case, 
whether you legislate according to opinions 
almost universal, and moral feelings deeply 
rooted, and sanctioned by the religion of 
nine-tenths of the people of the North who 
possess either morals or religion, or whether 
you legislate according to notions which are 
common in all communities upon whom the 
institution of slavery lias been entailed. But 
is it just as likely to cause difficulty when 
two-thirds of the whole people of the coun- 
try are irritated as when only one third are 
irritated? [Applause.] I see no way of 
getting out of this difficulty, so straight-for- 
ward, so sure of its results, as it would be, 
if practicable, to go back to the old Demo- 



12 



cratie principle, of the strict construction of 
all conslitutional grants of power ; and find- 
ing no such power delegated, finding that it 
is not so nominated in the bond, to say the 
United States Government have nothin"' to 
do with this matter. [Cheering.] 

But, sir and gentlemen, as this suhject is 
one of great interest, and as the manner in 
■which it has been most commonly discussed 
is different from the course I have pursued, 
allow me to go one step further. If it be 
granted, which I do not grant at all, — if it 
be granted that the United States government 
has the right to make a law upon this subject, 
under the fourth article, let us inquire 
what sort of a law it gives them a right to 
make ; for that is a matter of great conse- 
quence. A man charged with crime shall on 
demand be delivered up ! That is the law. 
What have you to ascertain before you give 
him up? Simply that he is c/iiar^erf/ That 
means, that he is charged by some responsi- 
ble person, on what a lawyer would call good 
and probable cause, upon which charge, so 
far substantiated, the executive of the State 
from which it is alleged that he fled, demands 
him, by a formal written requisition. 

Where shall he be tried ? Where he is 
charged ! It is a privilege to the party 
charged with crime that he shall be tried 
■where the crime is alleged to have been com- 
mitted. This is inserted for the benefit of 
the person charged with crime. So that, if a 
person be charged with crime, let him go back 
to the place where it is alleged that the deed 
was committed, for there he can most easily 
prove his innocence. This is ba.sed on a very 
ancient principle of the English common law. 

The question to be decided is, Is the man 
charged 'i Does a responsible man who 
would be convicted of po'jury if it were not 
true, swear that he committed the crime ? If 
so, we will take his oath and send the accused 
man back. We will take the requisition of 
the executive as proof that such a charge 
has been made. He does not have his trial 
■where he is found, but only his preliminary 
trial there. The preliminary inquiry in such 
a case may bo accomplished by a summary 
process, for it includes little more than the 
verification of the authority under which he 
is demanded, and proof of the fugitive's 
identity. It is not necessary to have a 
jury in 3Iassachufictts to try a man who is 
charged with having committed a murder in 
New York. You could not conveniently 
give him a fair and full trial here. You, 
therefore, go through a summary process to 



determine whether it is necessary to send 
this man back. 

I go next to the succeeding clause. I 
know that the men who made this Constitu- 
tion knew what they were about, and did not 
put a single clause here, or a single word 
here, without meaning. There is no book 
in the English language, of which the con- 
struction is so plain, as the constitution of the 
United States. If a man comes to it with a 
sincere and honest heart, and will take the 
trouble to compare one portion with another, 
he cannot fail to come to a right conclusion. 

We come, then, to the next section : " No 
person held to service or labor in one State 
under the laws thereof escaping into another, 
shall in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein be discharged, &c." There is a very 
extraordinary difference of language between 
this section and the preceding one. In that 
it was a " person charged with crime." 
There was probable cause to believe that he 
might be guilty. But in this section, is it a per- 
son charged with being held to service ? a per- 
son that somebody swears was held to service ? 
The Constitution tells you what it is : " No 
person held to service or labor, &c." If he is 
not held, he is not liable. " No person 
held to service or labor in one State, under 
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall 
in consequence of any regulation therein, be 
discharged from such service or labor ; but 
shall be delivered up, &c." Who shall be 
delivered up? The person "held." Not 
the person "charged," as in the case of a 
person charged xoith murder. It is not the 
person suspected, but it is the person " heldy 
When ? Not till it is found out whether he 
he held or not, I take it. [Repeated rounds 
of applause.] 

But the person held to service or labor, 
" shall be delivered up on claim of the party 
to whom such service or labor may be due." 
The party who held him must prove that the 
service or labor is due and that he was held. 
How is this to be done ? Is it to be done by 
a summary process ? Did any man ever hear 
of such a thing except in relation to slavery ? 
[" Hear ! hear !"] Did any man ever hear 
that any question of liberty or property was 
finally disposed of by means of a summary 
process, except in relation to this subject of 
slavery ? 

We are told that we should submit. Now 
I do not go to a Southern State to tell them 
what they shall do, or what they shall not do. 
Let them provide for their own institutions 
as they please, but let them not come here 



13 



and tell me that a man shall not have a trial 
by jury, and that he shall not only not have 
a jury trial here, but, perhaps, no where 
else. I do not admit any such doctrine here. 
[Cheers.] 

Why, is it not quite clear how this question 
•whether he be held to service or not, should 
be decided ? What is the principle of the 
Constitution of the United States on that sub- 
ject ? For there is a principle laid down here. 
There is very little left out that ought to be 
in this Constitution. There is laid down 
here the rule that no man shall " be deprived 
of his life, liberty, or property, without due 
process of law." That is in the 5th article 
of the amendments of the Constitution of 
the United States. 

Now I take it, if you seize a colored man, — 
or you may seize a white man under the 
operation of this law, — if you seize any man 
in Massachusetts under this fugitive slave 
law, the first question is. Shall he be deprived 
of liberty? i^ou are not to take it for grant- 
"ed that he is a slave. All presumptions of 
law are in favor of liberty. It is a maxim old- 
er than Christianity itself, " Presumitur pro 
Ubertate ;" that the presumption is always to 
be in favor of liberty. Now, if I say it was 
the maxim of ancient Rome before Christ 
was born, it is the maxim of Christian Eu- 
rope, and of everybody, the world over, to- 
day ; it is the maxim of the civil law of Eu- 
rope, coming from the early ages of the lie- 
public, through the Empire, and survivino- 
the Empire, a system of law matured for 
twenty-five hundred years, into the most per- 
fect embodiment of human reason to which 
the world has given birth ; this law cried 
through all time, " All men are by nature 
free ;" it is the great cry of Pagandom toChris- 
tendom, and Christendom echoes it back ; it is 
the maxim of the common law of England ; 
it is the maxim of the common law of Massa- 
chusetts ; it is the maxim of the whole world, 
save only the slaveholding States of this 
Union. [Enthusiastic shouts of applause.] It 
is to be presumed that the man is free, from 
the fact that he is a man made in the image 
of God. [Renewed cheers.] 

The image of God stamped upon him cer- 
tifies him to be free. [Cheers.] The human 
form divine with which he walks erect and 
proudly looks to heaven, certifies him to be 
free. [Intense sensation.] And when all 
Roman and all European, aye, Asiatic and 
American laws have decided he shall be 
free — when that is the universal law of the 
world, I will not agree that any miserable 



notion of a temporary expediency shall make 
me bow down to that very detestable, abom- 
inable, horrible, and wicked doctrine, that 
the color of a man shall establish the fact, or 
even furnish a presumption of the fact, that 
he is not free. [Cheers repeated for a con- 
siderable time.] 

I go on then upon the Constitution of the 
United States, and I say this man found in 
the State of Massachusetts is presumed to be 
free ; and therefore, when you seek to make 
a slave of him, the question is. Shall he be 
deprived of his liberty ? He has his liberty. 
Shall he be deprived of it 'I Tlie Constitution 
says he shall not be deprived of his life, 
liberty or property, without due process of law. 

I admire the arrangement of those three 
words. I admire the putting of liberty be- 
tween life and property. There are two 
schools on this subject : some who think life 
is worth more than property, some who think 
the life of a man is worth more than the 
shirt upon his back ; and others who have a 
sacred regard for the dollars a man possesses, 
and believe that his purse is vastly more im- 
portant than his person. If a man thinks that 
life is the more important of the two, then is 
liberty placed most appropriately by the side 
of it. If on the contrary he thinks property of 
the most importance, then liberty takes prece- 
dence even of that. Between property and 
life, it is in either case in a respectable posi- 
tion. [Applause.] 

What is " due process of law? " Let me 
say why it was that that clause was put there. 
For all these safeguards are inserted in the 
Constitution by its framers, or by those who 
amended it, because they knew what had 
happened in the past. Men had been de- 
prived of their lives, their liberty, and their 
property, without due process of law. They 
had in their minds the practices in the House 
of Stuart under James I, and Charles I, and 
in a degree under Charles II, and James II. 
Men's liberties had been taken away without 
due process of law, without trial by jury. 
This was accomplished by means of the Star 
Chamber, without trial by jury, without the 
confronting of witnesses. 

In that Star Chamber, and also by means 
of certain other courts, the liberties of the 
citizens were taken away. Commissioners 
were also appointed, constituting irregular 
courts, not the courts of the king's bench, 
nor any other courts, with stated terms ; but 
this appointment was effected by selecting 
certain individuals, fit tools of the tyrant. 
These would constitute a court, for the ex- 



14 



press purpose of trying a certain man. Com- 
missioners were appointed who went down 
and tried the case without a jury, and with- 
out a public hearing and without confronting 
the witnesses. In that way men's liberties 
have been taken away. This was no new 
thing under tlie Stuarts. It had been done 
under the Tudors, under the Plantagenets, 
and even before the Plantagenets. This 
very ancient abomination, this hoary survivor 
of the iniquities of a thousand years had been 
among the causes of the civil wars between the 
monarch and the subject, in which British 
swords were sheathed in British hearts, till the 
genuine Norman nobility was almost extermi- 
nated from the land. It was denounced in all the 
Bills of Rio-hts in the English language, and 
in charters before the English language 
was known, in Magna Charta, before Magna 
Charta, and perpetually in all proclamations 
of liberties afterwards. 

When this article was added to the Con- 
stitution, those who did it meant to guard 
against the.se usurpations of power. Govern- 
ments are the same in all ages, and these 
things might be done in our nation as well 
as elsewhere. No man shall " be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law." By due process of law, they meant 
in due process of proceeding in common law. 
It was the taking away of the trial by jury, 
it was the taking away of the habeas corpus, 
it was Star Chamber doctrine — it was all this 
against which they acted. 

What was due process of law ? That gen- 
oral examination of the Constitution, of which 
I have given you only a sketch, would show 
you what it was. To prevent any possible 
ambiguity, they said, in the seventh article of 
amendments, " In suits at common law where 
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty 
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre- 
served." 

And they supposed when they had secured 
both criminal prosecutions and civil suits, that 
they had covered everything. They meant to 
cover all things, except well known and well 
defined proceedings in admiralty, proceedings 
in chancery, and also courts martial. They 
meant to include all save those exceptional 
cases, and they did not suppose that anybody 
would imagine that the trial of a man's liber- 
ty was one of these. The writ to ascertain 
whether a serf belonged to the lord who 
claimed him, is one of the oldest in the com- 
mon law. 

Will any one rise up and say that a man's 
liberty is not worth twenty dollars ? If a man 



owes another eighteen or twenty dollars, and 
it costs a hundred dollars to get it, he would 
certainly better not have a jury to try the 
case. All sums below twenty dollars cannot . 
be tried by a jury for this reason, viz., that 
it would cost more than that to try the case. 

Some limit it was necessary to fix ; and 
that amount was selected as the most appropri- 
ate. They never dreamed that any man's 
liberty would not be considered worth twenty 
dollars. 

What is a man's liberty worth ? Will the 
vivner say it is not worth twenty dollars ? If 
it be worth to the master five hundred dollars, 
is it not worth as much to the man himself? 
No slave would escape, no master would pur- 
sue him, no master would keep him, if he 
were not worth more than twenty dollars. 
But, " In suits at common law, where the 
value in controversy shall exceed twenty dol- 
lars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre- 
served." Now the Supreme Court of the 
United States have decided (in the case of 
Lee against Lee) that a man's liberty is worth 
to him, in all cases, more than one thousand 
dollars, and that where there is no appeal un- 
less the amount in controversy exceeds one 
thousand dollars, if the liberty of the party be 
brought in question, he shall have his appeal. 

Due process of law is meant to distinguish 
the careful, guarded, strict, precise manner 
known to the English law, from the summary 
military process used in time of war. There 
can therefore be no doubt, that a person held 
to service is, by due process of law, entitled 
to his trial by jury. [Applause.] 

There are other questions entitled to con- 
sideration, if I did not perceive that the hour 
is approaching at which a great portion of my 
audience will be obliged to leave the hall if 
they wish to reach their homes to night. 
[Cries of "Go on ! go on ! "] 

I lay down two propositions : First, that 
the government have no jot or tittle of power, 
authorizing them to act for the rendition of 
fugitive slaves ; and second, even if they had 
such a power, this clause would require that 
it should be exercised under due process of 
law, which due process of law includes a jury 
trial. [Applause.] A jury trial, where? 
" A person HELD to service shall be de- 
livered up." Certainly, in the place where 
he is seized ! He should be tried by an im- 
partial jury. It is said, carry a man from 
Maine to Texas, and then he can have his 
trial. I should prefer not to run that risk if 
I were liable to be arrested. I would make 
it certain whether I had been held to service, 



15 



before I ran the risk of perpetual servitude, 
by being carried into a slave State. 

But that is not all. Suppose that every 
man who claims a fugitive slave were as wise 
as Solomon, and as upright as Sir Matthew 
Hale. Suppose he were determined to give 
the alleged fugitive a fair trial in a Slave 
State. — Wbat follows? Simply, that in the 
Slave-holding States, the rule of law is op- 
posite to what it is here. Here he is a free- 
man till he be proved to be a slave. There he 
is a slave till he be proved to be a freeman. 

The rule at the South is, that a colored 
man is a slave till he be proved free. He 
may be free and unable to prove it, because 
he has lost his free papers. He may be free 
because his mother and grandmother were 
free before him, and they might not be able 
to testify in a Southern court. 

Suppose that they should always construe 
their laws fairly. Would you send a man 
back to a system of laws where a man is pre- 
sumed to be a slave ? [" No ! no !"] And 
I say no ! Never I Try a man where he is 
presumed to be free. [Cheers.] 

I will go no further, but simply read these 



resolutions which 1 believe embody the sub- 
stance of what I have said, and leave them to 
your decision. I have made this explanation, 
though I knew that it would be distasteful to 
some persons who have heretofore voted for 
me. I want them to show their numbers in 
favor of the expediency of making a chano-e in 
the candidate. I want the Democratic party 
to strike out the course which they will choose 
to pursue, and I think they need no assur- 
ance from me that in any course they may 
adopt, for the furtherance of sound demo- 
cratic principles, the ancient principles of old 
fashioned liberty, they will find in me a 
zealous coadjutor. I will read the resolutions, 
because they state my position more clearly 
than the remarks which I have had the 
honor to address to you. [The Hon. gentle- 
man closed amid enthusiastic applause.] 

The resolutions were then put to vote, and 
the response shook the hall like thunder. 
They were passed by an overwhelmin"' 
" aye " to 07ie solitary " no .'" Mr. Eantoul 
was then unanimously re-nominated for Con- 
gress. 



54 W 






















5^ <> 













■^^ ' • • 




p' \/Wf:^'J- 'iv^^"/ \*^''\/ 






S' ^^ o 




''i^'i- 







'^ %, - 












: .i-^-nK. -, 




•T^-^ ,cP - 



><^ 












^r.<>^ 









• i 



ftp-r 

















Ms 



;!ii:l'H!!i;i 






iili 







■II 

' iiipii ! 

lililiiii 



iiliiilllM^^ 









::"i .:;r'^:;v^l i::nhi^i;^: i:^;;;:PS ijiii^ii !!;••, 'iiui.jii" 




Piilii 

|p;|j|ij|||i!tajr 

iiifiil 

iiir 
11 






